Experimental Development of Calcium Looping Carbon Capture Processes: An Overview of Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global warming might be mitigated if emissions were interrupted through carbon capture technologies, as there is a significant amount of comprehensive studies on them. An outline of the main gaps and trends of a technology is critical for further development. In this context, this study provides an overview of calcium looping carbon capture processes that have proven their potential and commercial viability. A bibliometric analysis is conducted on both Scopus and Web of Science database by seeking the keywords “calcium looping”, “co2 capture”, and “fluidized bed” in titles, abstracts, and keywords. Word selection was based on a list of relevant papers on the topic. These items of data have been processed and analyzed based on the number of publications and citations by emphasizing recent publication evolution, journal influence, the use of specific keywords, and co-citation. Results reveal that the European Union (EU) leads the rankings on the topic, followed by Canada. Keyword choice might have affected the number of citations. Recent studies used limestone as a sorbent and a dual fluidized bed reactor with a calciner or resistance depending on its size. Most studies are focused on technology scale-up. Although scale-up seems to be a priority, multiple studies are designed to assess the effect of steam generation and SO2 on the process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".